President's Perspective

The president’s education agenda

by Randi Weingarten

Mar 19, 2009 11:03 AM

What was it about President Obama’s first major speech on education that left so many teachers surprised, disappointed, and even angry? Or was it how the press reported it?

After all, the president had just secured a stimulus package that provided our nation’s schools with an unprecedented lifeline. And much of what he said repeats the themes and policies he articulated as Candidate Obama. His deep commitment to early childhood education and his desire to make college much more affordable have been evident from the beginning. And even his positions on the issues that evoked concern from teachers — performance pay and charter schools — were no surprise. He was clear on those during the campaign as well. His basic bargain always was: treat teachers like professionals; give them support and resources and require more accountability from them.

Although some of these positions made us nervous, we confidently embraced President Obama because we trusted that he would work with teachers and their unions, not against us in developing approaches on sometimes contentious issues. And so far I’ve received no message to the contrary.

And we made a similar pledge: that in the cause of giving all children better opportunities to learn and grow, if it’s good for kids and fair to teachers it should be on the table. I think most members agree with that — not because they believe that “differentiated pay” or charter schools are panaceas, but because they know that we must be part of the debate, and our voice must be heard when the decisions are made.

Besides, both strategies, if done right, can contribute to the solutions we all seek: A quality public education for all kids in schools that are welcoming places, by teachers who are treated as professionals and paid a decent middle class income.

Take charter schools. If we just say no, are we saying there is no room for laboratories? There would certainly be no room to take advantage of the freedom from numbing bureaucratic regulation that charters offer and use them as demonstration projects to illustrate our own vision of what a good school should look like, as we have done in East New York.

When Al Shanker began talking about the concept of charter schools some 40 years ago, that is what he had in mind: experimental schools founded by educators to try out different ways of teaching and learning, and then to change public education by power of their example.

At the same time, when we criticize charter schools that are unaccountable or those whose only apparent mission is to kill teacher unions, we must be heard. And we expect government to go after the union busting charters as zealously it goes after the “bad” teachers.

I happen to think that it was Al’s willingness to engage in even the most uncomfortable conversations that made him the pre-eminent educational leader of the 20th century. Circling our wagons against innovation would deny who we are as teachers, professionals and life-long learners; and it would negate our quest for proven and promising programs and practices that prepare our kids for college and life.

The same is true of differentiated pay, whether it is called performance pay, or merit pay, or anything that is not one size fits all. Of course all teachers deserve a decent salary. But most of us also believe in intrinsic and extrinsic incentives as long as they are good for kids and fair to teachers.

The challenge, when it comes to differentiated pay and accountability in general, is defining and measuring success. And, because that is hard, we have to fight against the easy out, the trap of equating student standardized test scores and effective teaching?

David Brooks of The New York Times did just that the other day in a column praising Obama’s endorsement of merit pay — a term, by the way, that the president never used in his speech. Brooks began by extolling the importance of good teachers, the ones people remember as having changed their lives, the ones who, he says, “develop emotional bonds with students.” So far, so good. Such teachers, one assumes, are the ones he wants rewarded.

But no, the column continues with the value of computerized data tracking systems that enable districts to calculate how much each teacher raises student test scores in order to identify those who deserve merit pay. That’s like paying David Brooks a salary according to how many issues The Times sells on two specific days each year.

As Einstein said, “Not everything that can be measured is worth measuring, and not everything that is worth measuring can be measured.”

New York City, of course, has the beginning of just such a data system as the one President Obama wants to encourage all school districts to adopt. And the quest for an easy answer is what gets teachers nervous. We know educating kids is difficult, complex, sophisticated work. A Daily News editorial about the data system’s value illustrates the point. It quoted a second-year Bronx teacher to demonstrate that the teacher data system is having the effect “intended by Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein,” which is, according to the News, “to get laggards to raise their games.” (And here I thought the intended use was to give teachers information about their students’ strengths and weaknesses so they could tailor their instruction. Silly me.)

Ruben, the Bronx teacher, writes in his blog, Bronxteacher.com, that he received a Teacher Data Initiative report. Though not pleased with his results, he responds:

“And while it (the TDI report) was a blow to my self-esteem, it was also a way to focus my expectations for this year. I know I’ve come a long way since last year, so I expect a big improvement on the next report card I see.”

“That’s the spirit, Ruben,” says the News. But the world’s biggest newspaper was very selective in quoting Ruben’s blog. Read Ruben’s very next paragraph.

“That said, the whole thing has to be taken with a grain of salt. As much as my job has been overwhelmed by testing, I refuse to judge my performance on test scores alone. Ultimately my job is to prepare my students for a life of learning and success. Tests that measure students’ academic performance is one way to assess my own performance. But I’d like to believe that there are intangible aspects to my job — for example, instilling a love of learning and proper work ethic — that can’t possibly be measured quantitatively. I think any attempt to rate teachers without accounting in some way for these aspects of teaching will be fatally flawed.”

So we are at a crossroads. We have a president who wants to help all children succeed — and who is, unlike his predecessor, respectful of teachers and their unions. At the same time, he is pushing all of us — parents, administrators, teachers, elected officials, communities — to do things differently. Do we respond with a willingness to engage, or do we circle the wagons?

In New York City, applying the standard, “Is it good for kids and fair to teachers?” we opted to engage. Our pilot program for schoolwide bonuses promotes the collaboration that is central to effective schools. In New York we also opted to teach — by continuously explaining what test score data can and cannot accomplish, that such a measure of a teacher’s performance is narrow and unfair, and an overemphasis on tests can subvert the very kind of education we seek.

There’s no question that the press, never appreciating a policy speech, tried to make a political showdown of it. After all, the president asked parents to take more responsibility, but I didn’t see headlines blaring that he is anti-parent. Sadly, they are looking for a fight, instead of looking for results. But we don’t have to give it to them.

What concerned me about the president’s speech was the issues that were not raised. What about the tools, conditions and resources that teachers and students need to succeed? The need for smaller classes or for high standards or strict codes of conduct? The need for the health and social services our children need in their schools and communities? The support and professional development that would help teachers do their jobs? These tools and conditions are what we need to help our students fulfill their God-given potential.

Our new president is a good leader, and as such he is also a good listener. Let’s take him at his word that he wants change for kids, change we can all believe in. And let’s do what we do best: teach what we know to be right and fight what we know to be wrong. But let’s also be the life-long learners we want to be — open to new ideas provided they are good for kids and fair to our members.